PURNA CHANDRA MATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties and the judgment is as follows : This appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and R.I. for three years under Section 301 of I.P.C. with the direction to run the aforesaid sentences concurrently.

(2.) The impugned judgment in Sessions Trial Case No. 29/122 of 1996 was delivered by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak on 6th June, 1998. The fact noted in the impugned judgment and the Trial Court record indicates that by the date of occurrence, i.e. 24/25.12.1995 Mandaradhar Rout, hear-in-after referred to as deceased, was staying in the hotel of the appellant and was engaged in the business of selling Bidi in the locality. By then he was staying there as an unknown person. In other words, the people of the locality had no knowledge of the identity of the deceased. While so staying in the hotel premises of the appellant at about 4.30 a.m. in the night between 24/25.9.1995, allegedly the appellant committed murder of the deceased by dealing axe blows and causing his homicidal death. As alleged, after committing murder of the deceased with the help of the co-accused, who has been acquitted appellant put the dead body in a gunny bag and concealed it within the hotel premises. Accidentally, PW-2 Rajesh Nayak, a hotel boy of the adjoining hotel became an eye witness to a part of occurrence and thereafter, the A.S.I. of Police (PW-4) was informed about the incident by PWs 1 and 3 where upon investigation of the case was undertaken. In course of the investigation, during the spot visit, the dead body could be recovered from the hotel room of the accused and inquest was held as per the inquest report Ext. 1. Thereafter, the investigation proceeded in a routine manner. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. In the Court of Session, appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial to the aforesaid charges. In course of trial, prosecution relied on evidence of as many as fifteen witnesses and relevant documentary evidences, which include inquest report, post modern report, seizure list and the report from S.F.S.L. Prosecution also exhibited relevant materials like wearing apparels of the deceased and the weapon of offence besides, the other relevant articles lying in that room at the time of occurrence. Those material objects have been marked MOs I to IX. On appreciation of evidence on record, Learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PW-13, the doctor who conducted post mortem examination and the post mortem report, Ext. 9, and recorded finding that deceased suffered homicidal death. In that respect, evidence of PW-13 is that he found incised wound of different dimensions and different sizes on the trargor or left ear, left mandible, left parietal region, left forehead, and left side neck besides, fracture of left mandible and exposure of the brain matter due to the incise wound on the parietal region. He also found the corresponding internal injuries. According to PW-13 all the injuries were ante mortem in nature, cause of death was due to shock and haemmarhage and injury to vital organs of body like brain and time of death was within 24 to 48 hours from the time of post mortem examination which was conducted at 12.30 PM to 1.30 PM on 26.12.1995. On the basis of such evidence, Trial Court has recorded finding that deceased suffered homicidal death. In course of submission, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute to such evidence or the finding recorded by the Trial Court relating to homicidal death of the deceased.

(3.) Prosecution relied on solitary eyewitness, i.e., PW-2. In addition to that, it also put forth the circumstantial evidence of extra-judicial confession, circumstance of recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the hotel, seizure of blood stained axe, sample earth, besides wearing apparels from the occurrence room etc. as the corroborating circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge on a scrutiny of such evidence, found the evidence of PW-2 to be duly corroborated by other evidence tendered Prosecution so as to establish that appellant is the author of the crime both under Section 302 as well as 201 of I.P.C. Taking that view in the matter, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and awarded sentence in the matter already indicated.